National Academy of Sciences Challenges Trump’s Energy Plan
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is actively opposing Trump’s significant energy strategy. Many believe it’s definitely time for the Trump administration to cut funding to groups that are against fossil fuels and nuclear energy, and perhaps to challenge their reliance on left-leaning financial backers who support their initiatives.
Recently, NAS collaborated with climate advocates from Columbia University’s Sabin Climate Change Law Center. This partnership seems aimed at swaying federal judges on issues related to ongoing climate legislation.
Through this collaboration, NAS has facilitated the creation of new climate resources, including a reference manual on scientific evidence, published by the Federal Judicial Center. However, it is noteworthy that the manual does not clarify the Sabin Center’s connections to lawyers in predominantly blue states and cities pursuing lawsuits against oil and gas firms over climate change impacts.
Red state attorneys general have raised concerns, stating that a controversial chapter on climate was submitted to the Federal Judicial Center and was subsequently removed. But, in a somewhat defiant move, NAS has kept the updated version of the manual available online.
This situation follows NAS’s previous efforts last summer to undermine the Trump Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) attempt to revoke the Obama-era 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment certification, a decision Trump has labeled a “climate hoax.”
In a rather rushed effort, NAS gathered a group of those who subscribe to climate misinformation and quickly launched a partisan report defending the Obama EPA’s assessments. This approach was unusual, as NAS typically starts such projects only in response to federal agency requests or Congressional direction.
Even amid the COVID-19 pandemic, NAS has consistently declined to initiate outbreak investigations unless federal agencies specifically request them, ignoring normal procedures in an effort to protect the Trump administration’s stance on climate issues.
However, NAS hasn’t yet exhausted all its options to obstruct Trump’s energy objectives.
Trump’s push to rejuvenate the nuclear sector is underway. While various stakeholders in the nuclear industry are working on innovative technologies for energy generation and spent fuel management, substantial progress is unlikely without revising excessively cautious and scientifically questionable radiation safety standards.
The EPA and Nuclear Regulatory Commission are responsible for these standards, yet NAS has played a significant role in establishing them for the past seven decades. They are fully aware that these standards were not based on solid science, and I suspect they’re reluctant to engage in any process that might lead to scientific legitimacy now.
Founded by Congress in 1863 to offer scientific counsel to the federal government, NAS has been heavily influenced by the political left in the years following WWII.
From the 1950s onward, NAS began using its influence to counter the nuclear industry and has promoted climate change misinformation since the 1970s. Although NAS is officially a private, nonprofit entity, its funding predominantly comes from federal sources, which I think should be cut off immediately.
When scientific guidance is needed, Congress or federal agencies can opt to form a federal advisory committee or hire top consultants. There’s really no requirement for a permanent body that allows for such extreme politicization.
Finally, it goes without saying that the Trump administration should closely scrutinize the upcoming Federal Judicial Center budget. What does it suggest about a taxpayer-funded judicial body headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court distributing two versions of a manual, especially amidst controversy? At the very least, both versions should be retracted for review and amendment by unbiased experts rather than being manipulated by climate activists.
